Last x Days Posts  1 | 3 | 7 Days  Search  Topics  Tree View  Help
  Soarer Central * Mechanical - V8 * V8 Turbo * Archive through October 28, 2010 Previous Previous    Next Next  

Author Message
Aiden Cheese
DieHard
QLD
Soarer jzz30

Posts: 779
Reg: 09-2009

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Monday, October 25, 2010 - 01:33 pm, by:  Aiden Cheese (Chillpen) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Then a supercharger would be better if that's your only concern. By going with ANY turbo you're sacrificing instant power for more power overall and hopefully designing around a powerband which you will use.

You can just scale down a TT turbo so they have boost by 2300RPM if you want, you're just not making much power.

And if youre talking about potential then v8 might have more - except the enging which is fantastic and can run 1 000 000 kms+ on 0psi won't make 200 000 on 20psi without some strengthening.

In other words - like in everything: its still a matter of money. You might have potential but unless you're going to shell out even more money, you're not going to actually use that potential.

In the end your V8 with turbo is nice, but its not THAT much faster than a supercharged but its a lot more expensive.

Oh and its not much faster than a 2.5L TT with the same money spent on it in upgrades. (some would argue a strong case that it would actually be slower)

So at the end of the day there's no point saying superior, because the only thing that really is talking is your wallet.
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1796
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Monday, October 25, 2010 - 03:05 pm, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Christian Somerville wrote on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 12:55 pm:

RPM does mean alot actually, instant power, no lag is the ultimate (V8 turbo)




All turbos have lag the bigger the turbo the more peak power you can produce but the more lag hence a narrower power band.

Most track goers/race cars are NA as the ultimate driving control is only possibly to be achieve with a linear power curve which is what NA or postive displacement superchargers provide. Unlike the highly non linear reponse (less controllable) of a turbo system.

Blowers create heat, with the difficulties of intercooling they are not as popular for sustained high rpm use ie track and motorsport use.

As to RPM, larger RPM band can lead to better (shorter) gearing which typically result in a faster car.
Christian Somerville
Goo Roo
South Australia
UZZ31 V8 LTD

Posts: 1024
Reg: 03-2009

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Monday, October 25, 2010 - 06:12 pm, by:  Christian Somerville (Csomers) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'd prefer to go downt he supercharged route myself, postive displacement blowers give power throughout all rev ranges, my point was the difference between bottom end torque in a V engine versus an inline 6.
Stephen Shackleton
Tinkerer
WA
UZZ32

Posts: 44
Reg: 01-2008

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Monday, October 25, 2010 - 06:52 pm, by:  Stephen Shackleton (Shack) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As the saying goes “there is no substitute for cubes" a V8 on song sounds way better than any inline 6, my opinion of course
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1797
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Monday, October 25, 2010 - 10:29 pm, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Christian Somerville wrote on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 06:12 pm:

between bottom end torque in a V engine versus an inline 6




I think you are implying that an equivilant V configuration offers more torque than an inline engine.

This is not the case infact the exact opposite is true.

Inline engines (being relative ie 4.0lt V6 vs 4.0lt straight 6) offer more torque but produce less peak power.

This is one of the reasons why (combined with packaging) that inline engines are more suited to turbo charged applications where the added peak performance of the turbo overcomes where inline motors are typically lacking.
Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ30, '91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1742
Reg: 07-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 12:18 pm, by:  Phil Gibson (Sciflyer) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are at least a couple of turbo UZs that i know of that dispel this idea that hi-power turbo engines are laggy and produce no power down low

You guys are forgetting the critical differences between a 2.5 litre low compression engine and a 4 litre high compression one. Apples and oranges.
Useable boost not much above idle on a 450-500rwhp street car UZ *has* been done, when i get a chance i'll dig out the dyno sheets to prove it.
Aiden Cheese
DieHard
QLD
Soarer jzz30

Posts: 784
Reg: 09-2009

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:30 pm, by:  Aiden Cheese (Chillpen) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

High compression isn't normally a good thing with a turbo. It causes detonation. Usually most cars will have with the installation of a turbo - a thicker head gasket to lower the compression ratio.

There isn't anyone "forgetting" things, its just a lot of facts which are meaningless out of context.

Put some kind of context and then you'll see that different things do different stuff.

It's a shocking revelation isn't it?

Well I guess you V8 boys have to feel superior about something. You know - because by stock your car is slower and costs several hundred more in rego, you either say its got more potential, it sounds better or some other random fact to keep you happy :-)
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1800
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:37 pm, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Phil every turbo system has some lag and spool time.

Yes it can be minimal vs the performance gains but it is always there.

XR6T is probably a reasonable example to compare a 1uz to given the smae engine capacity, with the stock turbo running 7psi there is a little less tag than a TT soarer but it is still there.

In most cases with a well sized turbo running lowish boost (under 10psi) you can get good reponse but it is not as good as a positive displacement supercharger.

HonneyWell engineers spent hrs of hours developing manifolds and turbos to reduce lag and provide a better more linear response with the G6E (current lux pack XR6T). There goal was to make the power delivery seamless as if the engine was NA, they were unable to produce a perfect result but it is the best turbo setup I have driven to date. (Turbo is also very small running up to 150,000rpm with slightly higher than stock boost)

For a one off custom system with out the R&D time IMO it would be near impossible to replicate such a result and IMO you would likely have a typical result which is boost building above 2500rpm and full boost around 35000rpm.
Ben Creswick
Tinkerer
NSW
V8

Posts: 37
Reg: 06-2006

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:11 pm, by:  Ben Creswick (Turbo4l) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

yes turbo cars produce lag, but if even "on" lag its producing more power than a supercharger at the same spot in the rev range, does anyone care?
My WRX makes 300kw at the wheels at about 3500rpm. but yes it does have lag because its not making full boost the instant I reach 100% throttle. Turbos win every time.
Bernard Smith-Roberts
Tinkerer
ACT
Soarer V8

Posts: 76
Reg: 08-2008

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:12 pm, by:  Bernard Smith-Roberts (Gaze) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's what I like to see, engines revving above 35000rpm! Shows those Nancy F1 cars what's what.
Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ30, '91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1743
Reg: 07-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:54 pm, by:  Phil Gibson (Sciflyer) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Aiden Cheese wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:30 pm:

High compression isn't normally a good thing with a turbo. It causes detonation. Usually most cars will have with the installation of a turbo - a thicker head gasket to lower the compression ratio.




Except that we're talking about boosted UZs running the STOCK compression (ie, 10:1) and making 300+rwkw... that is the whole point, you dont have to change any engine internals at all... this is why the UZ is such a popular n/a engine for forced induction :-)



Damian Ware wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 01:30 pm:

XR6T is probably a reasonable example to compare a 1uz to given the smae engine capacity, with the stock turbo running 7psi there is a little less tag than a TT soarer but it is still there.




Its a reasonable example to compare to another low-compression factory turbo engine but not to a 10:1 UZ!

Both of you need to go and do some research, look at various turbocharged UZs for example the Hyperdrive one, the GTEIGHT Celica, the Hillbilly GTS Holden - all of them report getting usable boost pretty much from idle, certainly below 2000rpm - i quote "it makes boost from about 1500rpm, has 16 psi by 4300"

You simply cannot do that with a 1JZ and still make big power, that is the point i am making.

Furthermore, because it is still an n/a engine, even when it is "off-boost" it is still driving as it would from the factory, not a doughy low-compression engine with no boost.
Ali Saeed
Goo Roo
WA
UZZ31

Posts: 2921
Reg: 09-2007

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 05:54 pm, by:  Ali Saeed (Ali) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

if i remember correctly, Cihan said his project gt35r was at full boost by 3500rpm.
Aiden Cheese
DieHard
QLD
Soarer jzz30

Posts: 787
Reg: 09-2009

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:13 pm, by:  Aiden Cheese (Chillpen) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Phil Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:54 pm:

Except that we're talking about boosted UZs running the STOCK compression (ie, 10:1) and making 300+rwkw... that is the whole point, you dont have to change any engine internals at all... this is why the UZ is such a popular n/a engine for forced induction


Except if you run more than just a little bit of boost you'll run into detonation trouble. EVEN IN THAT ENGINE and that's not the fault of an engine - its to do with the compression of the volume of air + the limited amount of octane in the fuel. You don't avoid physics because of a 1uz scribed on a block.

You can't "Except" out of physics. You go so far and eventually you explode your valves into your piston.

I'm not saying that its not possible to achieve but if you run your engine on 98 fuel for 200 000kms at 10:1 compression hitting full boost regularly your engine will die. Even the 1uz. It only takes one bad batch of fuel for you to accidently do some harm.




Phil Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:54 pm:

Furthermore, because it is still an n/a engine, even when it is "off-boost" it is still driving as it would from the factory, not a doughy low-compression engine with no boost.


Um, you know there's a giant restriction in the exhaust as soon as you install a turbo right? THE F-ING turbo? In NA cars you have free flowing exhaust - or even headers to extract the exhaust. IN a turbo setup you have a blade in the way of the exhaust! It is doughy. That's what you get for installing a turbo :-)

You know you can raise the compression of an engine right? It's not like its rocket science. It's just not a very good way to get power out of a turbo car. The same money would be better spent on a lot of different places.


Phil Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:54 pm:

You simply cannot do that with a 1JZ and still make big power, that is the point i am making.


I'm asking you - to further the discussion of WHY does that matter?

How much RPM do you use when you're driving? Once you're moving you're not at idle RPM. If you're leaving someone behind at a set of lights - you build up the RPM to get the turbo's spooling. You're not at idle RPM.

Both cars would be badly driven if they dropped below 2500 RPM while in any kind of drag/race/circuit. So please give me a good reason for your point.
Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ30, '91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1745
Reg: 07-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:54 pm, by:  Phil Gibson (Sciflyer) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Aiden Cheese wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:13 pm:

Except if you run more than just a little bit of boost you'll run into detonation trouble. EVEN IN THAT ENGINE and that's not the fault of an engine - its to do with the compression of the volume of air + the limited amount of octane in the fuel. You don't avoid physics because of a 1uz scribed on a block.

You can't "Except" out of physics. You go so far and eventually you explode your valves into your piston.

I'm not saying that its not possible to achieve but if you run your engine on 98 fuel for 200 000kms at 10:1 compression hitting full boost regularly your engine will die. Even the 1uz. It only takes one bad batch of fuel for you to accidently do some harm.




..all of which is no different for ANY modified engine including a 1JZ - get the tune right with enough headroom in AFRs, intake temps and fuel octane and its fine. Maybe you should head over to Toymods and ask Justen with the 1UZ Celica how his made this sort of power...



...on an internally stock 1UZ for 5 years of driving, trackdays, khanas, etc

Its been done dude, theres no point arguing about it.



Aiden Cheese wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:13 pm:

Um, you know there's a giant restriction in the exhaust as soon as you install a turbo right? THE F-ING turbo? In NA cars you have free flowing exhaust - or even headers to extract the exhaust. IN a turbo setup you have a blade in the way of the exhaust! It is doughy. That's what you get for installing a turbo :-)




The turbo is not the biggest cause of poor off-boost performance, in fact in most installations its not even significant, however *the low compression used in factory turbo engines is.* There is of course a reason for using low compression in the first place, but thats for another discussion.




Aiden Cheese wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:13 pm:

Phil Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:54 pm:

You simply cannot do that with a 1JZ and still make big power, that is the point i am making.

I'm asking you - to further the discussion of WHY does that matter?




It matters because it proves my point that all other factors being equal a FI UZ (whether turbo or supercharged) would be superior to a FI 1JZ


Aiden Cheese wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:13 pm:

How much RPM do you use when you're driving? Once you're moving you're not at idle RPM. If you're leaving someone behind at a set of lights - you build up the RPM to get the turbo's spooling. You're not at idle RPM.




in my daily driving (and im willing to bet, most other people) probably 90% of it is done under 2500-3000rpm. While you might want to drive around everywhere at 4000rpm i sure dont, and i appreciate an engine that can produce useful boost at these low rpms as opposed to your typical 300rwkw 1JZ which cant.


Aiden Cheese wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 06:13 pm:

Both cars would be badly driven if they dropped below 2500 RPM while in any kind of drag/race/circuit. So please give me a good reason for your point.




Who said anything about racing?
Nathan Richardson
TryHard
N.T.
UZZ32 #445 (V8 Supercherged 5Speed. 291RWKW)

Posts: 336
Reg: 02-2006

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 09:47 pm, by:  Nathan Richardson (Richtheblack) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow.... This thread has just come to life again Love it!!!

I have been talking to Bullet Cars lately about where I am going with my 32, do I build the bottom end before 14psi, water/meth and 350+rwkw? And basically as mine is (100K on the clock, stock bottom end), their opinion, all good (and they know).

So I'm now gathering bits to toughen up the drive line prior to hitting the dyno and if I loose the engine whilst there, then that's just unlucky for me I guess.

Mind you, if I had a 1UZ in anything else with room to fit a twin turbo setup, I'd be there!!
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1801
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 07:51 am, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Phil Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 03:54 pm:

Its a reasonable example to compare to another low-compression factory turbo engine but not to a 10:1 UZ!

Both of you need to go and do some research, look at various turbocharged UZs for example the Hyperdrive one, the GTEIGHT Celica, the Hillbilly GTS Holden - all of them report getting usable boost pretty much from idle, certainly below 2000rpm - i quote "it makes boost from about 1500rpm, has 16 psi by 4300"

You simply cannot do that with a 1JZ and still make big power, that is the point i am making.

Furthermore, because it is still an n/a engine, even when it is "off-boost" it is still driving as it would from the factory, not a doughy low-compression engine with no boost.




Firstly 16psi at 4300rpm is poor result IMO and not well sutied for a daily driver street car compared with a TVS or twin screw that can produce 16psi off idle. For a track car living between 4000 to 6500rpm it would be fine.

Something that just seems to be forgotten is the low to mid throttle applications balancing a car whilst going around a corner or just keeping the car chugging along up a step hill which is where a positive displacement supercharger comes into its own over a turbo system.

Whilst I have researched most modified 1uz on the web I doubt I have seen all of them. Most if not all street car applications are supercharged and turbo is used in transplants and track cars.

Justins is a perfect example of a highly optimised setup with extensive R&D . He has tried multiple configurations and had probably the best/highly optimised turbo setup on a 1uz in the world.

Justin tried as I remember the following (test of memory here), small TT setup, larger TT setup, positive displacement supercharger setup which he commented all along that the response and driveability was just amazing even though it didn't have the top end he was looking for. He then went to a twin charged setup turbos and supercharger combined but wasn't happy with the top end as the M90 was a too large of restriction.

He went back to turbos only and have a number of different exhaust manifold designs modified the factory intake manifold then made 3 custom intake manifolds all of which were considerable improvements on the last.

He spent a massive amount of time and money on developement to optimise his setup and get the best out of it but it appears as per below he wasn't never happy with the low down response/driveability.

When he replaced the motor (after it blew up) he instead of using the highly optimised turbo setup which was a simple bolt on installation he spent more time and money developing a positive displacement supercharger setup so clearly he wasn't happy with the response/power delievery.

Keep in mind his car is a strip out celica built for the track most likely sub 1000kg with shorter gearing.

Compare this to a soarer, much heavier, most are automatic, taller gearing; an application that generally requires much greater low down engine torque.

To sum up after using mutliple turbo setups, multiple exhaust manifolds multiple intake manifolds in a light weight track car the owner went back to a positive displacement supercharger.

What level of result/satisfaction would most people have with a custom one off turbo setup. I doubt they would achieve the results that Justin did in both low down response and power figures. I doubt most people would be 100% happy.


As to how well a 1uz will last sure they are a strong engine but once you go beyond double the factory HP they don't tend to last. There are a number of examples of 1uz failures with power levels at and beyond 260-280rwkw.

Justin if I recall correctly only ran 10psi on the track with a bucket load of water meth. The higher power figures (dyno charts) at greater boost levels were for dyno runs and drag use only ie short bursts and not sustained use.


I have read that turbo restriction results in approximately 10% power drop with a mid sized turbo but this is highly dependant on the manifold design and turbo size.
Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ30, '91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1746
Reg: 07-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:32 am, by:  Phil Gibson (Sciflyer) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Damian Ware wrote on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 07:51 am:

To sum up after using mutliple turbo setups, multiple exhaust manifolds multiple intake manifolds in a light weight track car the owner went back to a positive displacement supercharger.




From his thread on Toymods re: the current SC install

Drives nice and has some go. Very surprisingly, my old turbo setup is still stronger everywhere so the low done grunt advantage of the SC is dispelled once and for all.

Looks like the built VVTi will be turbo for sure. Hair dryers FTMFW


I think that speaks for itself. The only point you could argue is that he wasnt using a more efficient blower such as a HTV1900. If it wasnt for the fact that i cant weld or do significant fabrication work i would be 100% going down the turbo route, both for a track car and a daily driver. As it is i have to seriously consider the relatively simple bolt-on nature of a decent blower such as the HTV1900 that Nathan and others have had good results from.
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1802
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:46 am, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Phil Gibson wrote on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:32 am:

I think that speaks for itself. The only point you could argue is that he wasnt using a more efficient blower such as a HTV1900. If it wasnt for the fact that i cant weld or do significant fabrication work i would be 100% going down the turbo route, both for a track car and a daily driver. As it is i have to seriously consider the relatively simple bolt-on nature of a decent blower such as the HTV1900 that Nathan and others have had good results from.




Well that is interesting and certainly goes against conventional logic and most probably even what justin thought (otherwise why would he used the supercharger setup). I am still amazed that the very low down response isn't improved over a turbo setup.

If I remember correct Justin was running the M112 at 10-12psi. This as you say is the older generation of blower and 30% less efficient than the TVS and twin screw options.

How much that effects rwkw is unclear for every motor/application blower and pulley size. There have been few back to back results. But I have seen dyno charts of mustangs 50 to 70rwkw increases (which appeared to be very constant across the board) when switching to the TVS blowers from the previous design using the same size pulley.
Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ30, '91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1747
Reg: 07-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:51 am, by:  Phil Gibson (Sciflyer) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Damian Ware wrote on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 07:51 am:

Firstly 16psi at 4300rpm is poor result IMO and not well sutied for a daily driver street car compared with a TVS or twin screw that can produce 16psi off idle.




When that 16psi equates to 360rwkw i fail to see how that is a bad result. (Relating it back to the original topic, show me a 1JZ making anywhere near that power at ~4000rpm.)

Another point - No blown stock 1UZ is getting 16psi off idle, not even close. Look at Nathans' dyno printout for a guide.
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1803
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 09:41 am, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Phil Gibson wrote on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:51 am:

When that 16psi equates to 360rwkw i fail to see how that is a bad result. (Relating it back to the original topic, show me a 1JZ making anywhere near that power at ~4000rpm.)

Another point - No blown stock 1UZ is getting 16psi off idle, not even close. Look at Nathans' dyno printout for a guide.




Below 4300rpm there isn't 16psi which is the point; as I said perfectly fine for a track car using that rpm range all the time but not as good for a street car. How much boost is there at 2000rpm, 2500rpm, 3000rpm and 3500rpm.

My blown 1uz using a YT1500 positive displacement supercharger produces 0.8psi less than full boost at 1700rpm and 0.5psi less than full boost at 2000rpm.

Whilst there is from 2000rpm to 6500rpm about 0.5psi variation (peak boost at 4500rpm) I think that is a much better result than what is achieved with a turbo setup in the lower rpm range.

The result applies directly to a bigger blower pushing more air, sure bigger blowers are slighly less efficient at lower rpms but they still produce very good results. I recall results from a 2.3lt whipple on a 1uz running 12psi having 10psi at 2000rpm with 2psi variation from 2000 to 7000rpm. This isn't perfect but I am yet to see a turbo setup that has 10psi at 2000rpm or even half that.

The latest Kenn Bells now come in two configurations one for low to medium (10-15psi)boost applications and the other suited to hight boost. They claim the low to medium boost design produces even more air flow at lower rpms with a near perfect linear response with rpm (boost will vary apon engine application and engines demand for air) and provide more constant boost (peak boost on ford motors was under 3000rpm with about 2psi varation across the 2000 to 6500rpm range) than any other positive displacement supercharger on the market.
Nathan Richardson
TryHard
N.T.
UZZ32 #445 (V8 Supercherged 5Speed. 291RWKW)

Posts: 338
Reg: 02-2006

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 10:03 pm, by:  Nathan Richardson (Richtheblack) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Phil Gibson wrote on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:51 am:

Another point - No blown stock 1UZ is getting 16psi off idle, not even close. Look at Nathans' dyno printout for a guide.




That's because it is not geared to make 16psi at all.

It makes 10.5psi at 2500rpm peaking to 12.5 at 4600rpm, tapering off to 11psi at 7400rpm.

I'm expecting when I fit the 65mm pulley, I will see 3psi increase to the above figures.

So 0.5psi is the difference at 2500rpm to red line. That's not too shabby in my books.
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1807
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 07:45 am, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nath how much boost do you have at 2000rpm.
Phil Gibson
Goo Roo
WA
'91 UZZ30, '91 manual UZZ31 track bunky, '94 blk/blk UZZ31

Posts: 1748
Reg: 07-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 09:06 am, by:  Phil Gibson (Sciflyer) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nathan im not saying your result is bad im just saying 16psi off idle on a stock UZ isnt realistic - you would have to be running an oversized charger or a correct charger and a tiny pulley and likely overspeeding it to hell. Neither scenario is good.
Damian Ware
Goo Roo
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 1809
Reg: 10-2005

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 09:47 am, by:  Damian Ware (Frozenpod) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Phil, it is realistic. Positive displacement superchargers maintain almost constant boost over the rev range. Air flow volume is always changing with rpm but so is the engines demand for air it is a linear relationship.

2.3lt whipple (from dyno charts and posts on lextreme) running the same size pulley as an M90 running 6psi (within the optimal drive ratio range) was producing 14-15psi.

There was if I remember correctly 12psi just below 2000rpm with full boost 15psi by 2500rpm.

I will have to see if I can find the thread and dyno charts.

Attached is a eaton M90 graph note the air from from 4000rpm blower speed onwards in linear.

Typically a drive ratio of greater than 2:1 is used thus at 2000rpm the blower will be at or beyond 4000rpm.


Upload
Nathan Richardson
TryHard
N.T.
UZZ32 #445 (V8 Supercherged 5Speed. 291RWKW)

Posts: 341
Reg: 02-2006

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 06:31 pm, by:  Nathan Richardson (Richtheblack) Edit Post Delete Post Print Post   View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin Only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Damian Ware wrote on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 07:45 am:

Nath how much boost do you have at 2000rpm.




I can't tell off the dyno sheet, but I'll take a snap shot of the V500 data log.

Cheers.

  Administration Administration      Log Out Log Out Previous Previous      Next Next